July 21, 2005


Livingstone Defends ‘Progressive’ Qaradawi (IslamOnline.net, 7/20/05)

Livingstone condemned the vile media campaign against Qaradawi ahead of the August conference, saying that his views were distorted and misunderstood, rejecting that they affected the minds of the London bombers.

“What Sheikh Qaradawi pointed out was, given that the Palestinians do not have jet fighters and do not have tanks, they only have their bodies to use. I do not think he is actually urging people to go out and become suicide bombers,” Livingstone said, denouncing media for having “pandered to Islamophobia.”

He said Israel had “done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity in the way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades.”

He said it is unacceptable that Israel goes on “indiscriminately destroying homes simply because a [Palestinian] bomber came from that area.”

“I don't believe in an eye for an eye. I don't believe in that punishment.”

Which is more wrong: using "indiscriminately" to mean "targeting murderers" or "an eye for an eye" to mean destroying property in response to strapping on a bomb and murdering civilians?" Also, try to imagine the response from New Yorkers if Rudy Giuliani had said anything remotely approaching this on September 24, 2001.

Posted by David Cohen at July 21, 2005 11:44 AM

the fact that a person like ken livingstone is mayor of london *proves* the british people are not serious about terrorism. sheep are made to be sheared.

Posted by: cjm at July 21, 2005 12:08 PM

Four more bombs hit London today. Given the fact that they have elected and re-elected their mayor and given his behavior since the first bombing, the well of sympathy I have expressed for the victims of those bombings is running quite dry.

Posted by: bart at July 21, 2005 12:45 PM

Livingstone hates himself.

Posted by: Luciferous at July 21, 2005 2:20 PM

One doubts Red Ken will be re-elected.

Perhaps someone should ask him if it requires putting a bomb outside his door for him to have his eyes opened.

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 21, 2005 2:54 PM

One thing about Livingstone. He definitely does not 'hate himself.' He may hate Britain, hate Western Civilization, hate free enterprise but Red Ken is completely in love with himself.

He was re-elected and everyone knew what he was. He has made no secret of it for about 3 decades now.

Posted by: bart at July 21, 2005 2:59 PM

For people here to laugh at Livingstone for being purblind is pretty funny.

I can think of several ways to suss the latest London bombings, and I have no idea which one will turn out to be correct, but except for one (that is was the work of antimuslim provacateurs), all possible descriptions are bad news for the 'no bad Muslims' appeasers.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 21, 2005 3:36 PM

my wild ass guess is that mi5 has penetrated a cell and managed to sabotage the bombs before allowing the mission to proceed. whether or not mi5 or some other group is trying to provoke the muslims so as to hasten thier deportation is debatable.

Posted by: cjm at July 21, 2005 3:55 PM

You mean 'no bad Muslims' appeasers like Bart? Harry, the joke's wearing thin. People here are too polite to rub your nose in this, but the 7/7 bombers were Englishmen, and products of the university before the madrassa; in short creatures of Marx as much as Mohamed. That you are banging the appeasement drum so hard now suggests to me that you realise it. This genetically-engineered crocodile escaped from your lab, Harry. You go hunt it down and kill it.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 21, 2005 4:03 PM

So how come the English-born, university-educated citizens of Hindu or Buddhist or even African pagan ancestry are not bombing trains?

It's the religion.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 21, 2005 7:42 PM

If Marxism is a religion--I think it is--then Harry and Joe are both right. Wahabbism is, in practical terms, Marx with an Arabic accent, as it posits a dialectic struggle between the Dar al Islam and the Dar al [can't remember] which is fated to end in triumph for one side.

Posted by: Mike Morley at July 21, 2005 10:11 PM


How is it that the Oxbridge educated chattering classes are the ones making the apologetics for suicide bombers whether it is Red Ken or Tariq Ali?


You are definitely on to something there. Our struggle against the Soviets was a religious one, between two competing world views. The Soviet Union certainly was a religious totalitarian state similar to Saudi Arabia in that regard. That they worshipped the State and not Allah is merely a cosmetic difference.

BTW, it's the Dar al-Harb.

Posted by: bart at July 21, 2005 10:24 PM

First, I know plenty of people making apologies for the poor put-upon Muslims but no graduates of Oxbridge, so you're wrong on the facts.

Second, who cares?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 22, 2005 2:30 PM


I named two. There are tons of others, and if you read the Guardian and other British papers you would know that.

I'm not talking about website pollyannas like OJ, Peter B and David Cohen.

Posted by: bart at July 22, 2005 3:07 PM

So why pick on them?

I disdain appeasers wherever they went to school.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 22, 2005 6:40 PM

Because they dominate the intellectual universe such as it is in a benighted 4th rate nation like Britain.

In America, we have our own like Michael Moore, Gore Vidal, Victor Navasky, and Lord knows how many in Hollywood.

Posted by: bart at July 22, 2005 8:38 PM